Mormon Rejects Mormon Church Denouncment of Mormon Folk Beliefs About Blacks and Priesthood

Joseph Smith, Founder, Prophet, Revelator...and racist?

This is of course a very tired subject.  I did not intend on writing about it until I saw the a user comment on the Trib article.  First, a little background…

BYU Religion Professor Randy Bott attempted to explain the LDS Church’s exclusion of Blacks throughout its history until 1978.  Bott explained that by excluding Blacks from the priesthood, the church was saving them from:

“the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers…You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing god could give them.

This is what we in Utah call Mormon Apologetics. It is an art form here.

The LDS Church strongly denounced racism Wednesday and dismissed folk beliefs about why the Utah-based faith banned blacks from its all-male priesthood until 1978.- Salt Lake Tribune

I found this in among the comments on this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

I’m active LDS and I cringe when the church tries to cater to leftist political correctness and tries to change history. Randy Bott didn’t commit the dreaded “racism” either.

Most of the church’s response is absolutely true but part is splitting hairs because what Randy Bott said IS exactly correct, IS true doctrine, but what he said isn’t CURRENTLY focused on by the church (so since the church doesn’t focus on it, they’re implying that Randy isn’t speaking church doctrine). Unless passages of scripture and writings of past LDS leaders are going to be erased, it’s easy to prove. Past LDS leaders, by the truckload, dared to speak the truth that most blacks were not as valiant before we came here. Blacks DO descend from Cain. This was never a matter of dispute UNTIL political correctness came along and liberals wanted to alter all sorts of realities (btw I love how wikipedia refuses to use “B.C. and A.D.” anymore). Blacks ARE children of God and have equal OPPORTUNITY to seek for truth and teach it (equality before God isn’t true either and the scriptures back this up plainly, see Alma 28:13). In practice, most blacks just aren’t interested in the light and understanding of truth (they tend to prefer group think over truth). I wish this wasn’t the case. Whites have rejected Jesus Christ in droves and I would LOVE to see blacks en masse accept all the truth and remind lazy/arrogant whites that FULL conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to happiness and the only way to receive the miracles of God. I would love to see God pour out miracles and blessings on blacks, but the sad reality is that most of them just don’t seek the face of God. There are many blacks with TONS of faith in Christ, but they can’t break out of the groupthink and the segregated “black churches.”

I’m not ashamed of the truth and if lying leftists want to use the only word they know how to use (the term racism) then so be it. The church only creates problems for itself when it avoids the mountains of past teachings. Supporting conflicting bills dealing with the criminal illegals was similar double talk that only backfired on the church. Supporting the idiotic “compact” while not signing it also backfired. The general authorities have a very hard job and frankly they’re not experienced at DEALING with thorny issues (avoidance is the current order of the day). I would have just focused on Blacks being children of God and left it at that.

Calling the mountain of past teachings by LDS leaders “folk beliefs” is intellectually dishonest. Oh well, I’ve made mistakes in my callings too.

, ,

  1. #1 by james on March 1, 2012 - 4:44 pm

    Wow. You really can’t make this up.

  2. #2 by Shane Smith on March 1, 2012 - 5:33 pm

    The curse was done for a good reason…. Wow.

    So I guess being evil is inherited then?

    …and I love the “in practice most blacks aren’t interested in the truth” comment. The irony of these words leaving the mouth of anyone LDS is so thick you could cut it into bricks and lay a building.

  3. #3 by cav on March 1, 2012 - 6:00 pm

    Both Botts and this baddaboom fellah refer to reality: “… but the sad reality…” and “So, in reality the blacks not having the prieas…” as if it was something they know about.

    Then presuming to speak of Gods intention as though God were just another ward house guest.

    It comes down to the futility of renouncing my own personal racism for why? The ‘Big Guy’ himself is racist -why fight He- in whose image (white skin-tone predominates, of course) we (those of the creed) were created.

  4. #4 by brewski on March 1, 2012 - 7:11 pm

    And Mormons get all insulted when they are called a cult? I wonder why.

  5. #5 by Karmen on March 1, 2012 - 7:46 pm

    God help us all….. sigh.

  6. #6 by cav on March 1, 2012 - 7:53 pm

    I wonder why. brewski

    Care to venture a guess?

    Ron Paul wouldn’t hesitate.

  7. #7 by brewski on March 1, 2012 - 9:36 pm

    Because today’s Mormons see themselves as so mainstream, so American, so normal. They think they are like everyone else and that other denominations are sort of like theirs. But other denominations are not like theirs. Other denominations realize that they were deeply wrong in their racist pasts and have said that they were wrong and apologized for it.

    August 28, 2009
    The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church’s support of slavery and segregation. Richard Land, former head of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, gives more information on the historic apology.

    NPR

    But the Mormon’s statement on their racism is beyond laughable:

    “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago

    We don’t know why we were racists but we stopped being racists? That is not the same thing as saying that we were wrong, our prophets were wrong, and we are sorry. It is not possible to be forgiven for your sins until you confess. They have not confessed. They just say that they don’t know why they did and they stopped.

    As the Southern Baptists showed, it is never too late to confess and apologize. The Mormons have a chance to admit that their were wrong, their prophets were wrong, and not apologize. But they have not.

    You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind

    Brigham Young – Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290

  8. #8 by cav on March 1, 2012 - 11:18 pm

    Agreed, and thanks.

    I’ve heard a good deal of discussion of late explaining how ‘The Church’ is but a collection of individuals, each with their own morality, coming together as a congregation. On the other side of that coin is the authoritarian, dogmatic overlay, around which the flock seems to be unified.

    When the dogmatic is either too much a test of faith (at odds with reality, too far out) there often is a coincidental unhinging that seems to make for ‘good little adherents’ – willing, yet relatively mindless tools of the structure. This is, as you say a problem – for how can the flock be sorry for the wrongness of the prophets? There is a real disconnect that somehow requires no insight because the higher-ups suggest they’ve got it covered.

    This happens to varying degrees in all institutions, but since the overly authoritarian (read: ‘One True____’) seem to attract and collect the overly ‘toolish’, the question then becomes: How much can the authorities ask of the congregation before the whole shebang is unmasked for the unhealthy scheme it runs the risk of becoming, or is?

    Let’s ask Charles Manson or Jim Jones.

  9. #9 by Ken on March 2, 2012 - 7:50 am

    Joseph Smith had no problem with blacks in the Priesthood and was a staunch abolitionist. He was not a racist.

  10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on March 2, 2012 - 8:39 am

    Ken, For the sake of integrity, should I post Brighams photo instead?

  11. #11 by Shane Smith on March 2, 2012 - 10:15 am

    So mainstream, and with a grasp on reality…

    …unlike more conventional Christianity, where you simply eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of a god is is actually himself who was killed because you were made imperfect by a perfect god, thus requiring human sacrifice to allow you live forever. And don’t forget that the fact that his mom/young rape victim has to be a virgin. That iS manically important to us. Maybe that is why birthcontrol is so controversial.

    Yes those whacky Mormons, so unlike the reality based religions…

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on March 2, 2012 - 7:41 pm

    brewski says:

    As the Southern Baptists showed, it is never too late to confess and apologize. The Mormons have a chance to admit that their were wrong, their prophets were wrong, and not apologize. But they have not.

    Where did the Southern Baptists say their prophets were wrong. Also, it looks like the Baptists didn’t set things right until many decades after the Mormons – looking at the date on the statement you printed.

    Also, the quote you gave was not the formal Mormon statement given in 1978. I hate to defend ANY religion, but let’s have some integrity.

  13. #13 by Larry Bergan on March 2, 2012 - 7:44 pm

    I will admit that the statement from Brigham Young was disgusting, but I don’t think that is where the racism started. He said MUCH worse things about lawyers.

  14. #14 by brewski on March 2, 2012 - 9:19 pm

    …unlike more conventional Christianity, where you simply eat the flesh and drink the blood

    Yes, that is whacky. Not me.

    And don’t forget that the fact that his mom/young rape victim has to be a virgin.

    OK, now you are officially insane.

    Where did the Southern Baptists say their prophets were wrong.

    They said they were wrong.

    Also, it looks like the Baptists didn’t set things right until many decades after the Mormons – looking at the date on the statement you printed.

    The Mormons have still yet to set things right. The Mormons have not admitted they were wrong and not apologized.

    Also, the quote you gave was not the formal Mormon statement given in 1978.

    It was the formal 2012 statement.

    I hate to defend ANY religion, but let’s have some integrity.

    I do.

  15. #15 by Shane on March 2, 2012 - 10:19 pm

    I do.

    Funniest. Post. Ever.

  16. #16 by Larry Bergan on March 2, 2012 - 10:21 pm

    brewski:

    I’m sure you can point me to the exact quote where the Baptists denounced their prophet.

    As for apologies: republicans NEVER apologize and neither do you, because you’re a republican.

    Was the formal 1978 statement made in 2012?

    Just because you refute things with a list of refutations doesn’t make you right. Try again, please.

  17. #17 by brewski on March 2, 2012 - 10:29 pm

    I’m sure you can point me to the exact quote where the Baptists denounced their prophet.

    What prophet do you refer?

    The Mormons in 1978 and 2012 and never have said they were wrong and they are sorry.

    ust because you refute things with a list of refutations doesn’t make you right. Try again, please.

    I refute things with objective facts which make me right.

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on March 2, 2012 - 10:56 pm

    I guess I’m referring to the prophet, buddha, rancher or whatever in the Baptist church who originated racism in that church. I don’t know anything about your religion or mine for that matter. Don’t really care. Don’t like kettles calling kettles black.

  19. #19 by brewski on March 3, 2012 - 7:23 am

    I’m not Southern Baptist, and they have no prophet. But they said they were wrong and they have apologized. The Mormons have not said they were wrong and have not apologized.

    Photograph of the new leader of the Southern Baptists:
    http://media.nola.com/religion_impact/photo/9705147-large.jpg

    • #20 by Glenden Brown on March 3, 2012 - 8:17 am

      Larry – The Southern Baptists – like most of the baptist denominations I’m familiar with – have a congregational polity. That means that there’s no central authority that tells members what they must believe. Even after years of reform, the SBC leadership has limited influence on what individual congregations do say and believe; as for example, there are very liberal Southern Baptist churches (though many of them have severed their ties to the denomination as the denomination as a whole has moved toward a more fundamentalist stance). There’s no central Souther Baptist authority who dictated their views and values. The SBC got its start in the lead up to the Civil War when the southern baptists disagreed with the northern baptists about slavery. The result was a split in the denomination; today the former Northern Baptists are known at as the American Baptist Church (First Baptist on 1300 East is a part of that denomination). There are a whole bunch of different baptist denominations (for example, the distasteful Fred Phelps is a baptist minister of a Independent Baptist church that describes itself as Primitive Baptist Church.

      For the SBC to have apologized for its racist past is very different the the Mormon church apologizing for its racist past. Why? It means that a majority of delegates from SB churches around the country agreed that apology needed to happen and voted for it to happen at a national SBC gathering. Thousands of people had to be convinced their past racism was wrong. FWIW, the SBC has made huge strides in confronting racism – sexism and homophobia are another matter entirely.

  20. #21 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 8:08 am

    brewski may be baptist or not; generic or not; anything or not.

    Rush Limbaugh has a name and nobody has any idea where he lives or if he has a name.

    Fuck me!

    • #22 by Glenden Brown on March 3, 2012 - 8:25 am

      Larry – Limbaugh is a horrible human being. He’s just vile. The part I can’t figure out – millions of people listen to him every day. What the hell?

  21. #23 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 8:43 am

    He gets the spotlight. Imagine Phil Donahue or Bill Moyers. Snoozeville.

  22. #24 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 8:48 am

    Glenden:

    They tell us that people listen to Limbaugh. That doesn’t mean we do.

    In 1970, the people I knew at Sun Photo worked with a transsexual who changed our lives for the better. She/He convinced us to go on camping trips I will never forget. We didn’t have any sex there; just the joy of living.

  23. #25 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 8:58 am

    Well, I didn’t anyway.

    Good for me. :)

  24. #26 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 9:12 am

    Smoked a hell of a lot of pot there. You could say I was placated but never had to experience the hell of an unwanted pregnancy. :)

    God!

  25. #27 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 9:13 am

    Cav, your comment at #8, above, is one of the most astute I’ve read on this topic. As a lapsed Mormon myself, I feel I have some insight to this from both sides of the issue. For the church to characterize something as ‘folklore’ that was taught by every prophet from Brigham Young until 1978, brings into question the other admonition that members never question the prophet as the prophet is never wrong when he speaks for God. This whole folklore explanation is rife with problems, even more so for church members than non, as it requires them now to face the fact that perhaps some other things the prophets have said are also folklore and need to be questions and abolished. Like women not being able to stand in the prayer circle when their own baby is blessed. Or the silly little one inch of fabric covering the top of a woman’s shoulder that determines whether her clothing is modest or not. And lots of other silliness and some pretty big ones too, like tacitly endorsing the Republican party as God’s party.

    As for Limbaugh, he knows that no publicity is bad publicity and he’s eating this up. Surely his audience and his ratings have increased along with his detractors. Bill O’Reilly is trying to get on the bandwagon. Both lament they don’t want to pay for women having sex, when they are smart men and understand that contraceptives cost an insurance company FAR less than obstetric and pediatric care. Anyway, I thank them for this because they are going to help my much-loved President Obama be re-elected and it will be women who bring it. No man can possibly understand what it’s like to be a woman when it comes to issues of fertility, contraception, and sexual activity. A woman always remembers the day of her last period and never has sex that she doesn’t wonder about the possibility of pregnancy. It’s a huge and highly personal issue to all women.

  26. #28 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 9:14 am

    Maybe when all his sponsors are persuaded to find another voice.

  27. #29 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 9:14 am

    By the way, it seems this thread has devolved into two threads and part of this belongs on another post. I’m sorry for contributing to that.

  28. #30 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 9:15 am

    Thank!

  29. #31 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 9:20 am

    Thanks and hello Becky. Long time no read.

  30. #32 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 9:24 am

    Hi Cav. I tend to be pretty silent on the issues these days. Once in awhile I feel compelled to speak.

  31. #33 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 9:25 am

    Thread impurity?!

    Where’s the Management?

  32. #34 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 9:28 am

    I see you still have your blog: http://slcblues.blogspot.com/

    Nice.

  33. #35 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 9:31 am

    This is thread is moving too fast for me. My thank comment was intended to be apprehended to God at #26.

  34. #36 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 9:38 am

    Becky:

    Thanks for showing up and giving some credibility to this “blog” – which I prefer to call a forum.

  35. #37 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 10:07 am

    Thanks, Larry. This blog has plenty of credibility. And plenty of followers who would never acknowledge they follow it.

    Cav, I do have my RedStateBlues blog, but rarely post there either. I post more frequently in my personal blog My So-Called Life, and I keep it pretty non-controversial. I’m not often up for the fight these political blogs demand.

    Thanks, both of you guys.

  36. #38 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 10:15 am

    Be well Becky.

  37. #39 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 10:50 am

    I am weary of having to become partisan to the extreme because the Democrats won’t.

    I’m sure the problem is that Democrats who don’t tow-the-line aren’t paid a living wage.

    Matheson is barley keeping his head above the water, and I hope he sinks.

  38. #40 by Shane on March 3, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    Becky Stauffer :
    Cav, your comment at #8, above, is one of the most astute I’ve read on this topic. As a lapsed Mormon myself, I feel I have some insight to this from both sides of the issue. For the church to characterize something as ‘folklore’ that was taught by every prophet from Brigham Young until 1978, brings into question the other admonition that members never question the prophet as the prophet is never wrong when he speaks for God. This whole folklore explanation is rife with problems, even more so for church members than non, as it requires them now to face the fact that perhaps some other things the prophets have said are also folklore and need to be questions and abolished. Like women not being able to stand in the prayer circle when their own baby is blessed. Or the silly little one inch of fabric covering the top of a woman’s shoulder that determines whether her clothing is modest or not. And lots of other silliness and some pretty big ones too, like tacitly endorsing the Republican party as God’s party.
    As for Limbaugh, he knows that no publicity is bad publicity and he’s eating this up. Surely his audience and his ratings have increased along with his detractors. Bill O’Reilly is trying to get on the bandwagon. Both lament they don’t want to pay for women having sex, when they are smart men and understand that contraceptives cost an insurance company FAR less than obstetric and pediatric care. Anyway, I thank them for this because they are going to help my much-loved President Obama be re-elected and it will be women who bring it. No man can possibly understand what it’s like to be a woman when it comes to issues of fertility, contraception, and sexual activity. A woman always remembers the day of her last period and never has sex that she doesn’t wonder about the possibility of pregnancy. It’s a huge and highly personal issue to all women.

    Becky, final, infailable, forever. Until we change our mind. One of the great things about religion.

    As for women and birth control, clearly you don’t understand, most likely because you are female, but as we have been told several times now this simply isn’t a women’s issue. The logical and reasonable people have spoken…

  39. #41 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 3:17 pm

    Don’t bother me right now, Shane, I’m really busy sewing this flour sack dress and grinding the wheat for my homemade bread, and I cannot be late for my breast implant followup appointment.

  40. #42 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 3:43 pm

    Ha!

  41. #43 by Shane on March 3, 2012 - 4:56 pm

    I don’t mean to bother you Becky, I u drstand how it can be when you have to look like a model and still fight off the men while holding an aspirin between your knees, but I did just see that Tush Limbaugh is in the news again…

    After insulting a women for the nerve of wanting to testify that a friend needed birth control pills duets overran cysts, Tush called her a whore, a slut, and said that if he as a tax payer had to pay for her birthcontrol she should post her sexual encounters online so he could get something for his money. I am sure younon all this. I merely add the details for anyone living in cave.

    Now he tells us that calling her a slut and a whore and a prostetute and suggesting he should get to watcher have sex should not be taken as a personal attack. What a relief.

    He still also thinks that this is about her sexual activities despite the fact, again, that she was there to speak about birth control in non-sex related issues. It is almost as if he never knew what the topic was, and was just making insults up and calling them facts. This is a behavior I have never seen from conservatives before, so I am understandably disturbed…

    He then moves his apology to asking whether we will be asked to pay for sneakers for students who like to run. Another tactic I have never seen before from conservatives. I am bewildered.

    The good news is that he goes on to say that it is not our busnisses what happens in bedrooms (except, presumably, those that he gets the video tapes too because the women on them are whores) Norris it a topic for the government.

    …so I guess Tush now supports gay marriage?

    In classic non-appology he ends by stating that his word choice was poor. I have to agree. He should have used “harlot” as it just sounds better.

  42. #44 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 5:07 pm

    I saw that, too, Shane. He’s only sorry about the part where the sponsors started leaving. He still thinks this is about “recreational sexual activity.” But he’s confusing birth control pills with his viagra that you take 20 minutes before the big event and then you’re done. Unaware, I guess, that women take that pill every day of every month for as long as they want to avoid pregnancy.

    The apology is not enough. I want to hear that he really understands why this issue is important.

    We’re all feminazis now!

  43. #45 by Shane on March 3, 2012 - 5:29 pm

    I have been a bit of a feminazi for some time, so that is hardly new. It is just good to see all the difference a few (million) people can make when they get together and say enough is enough.

    I hope no one thinks this non-appology is acceptable and lets him off the hook. Like Beck, he just shouldn’t have supporters. If we are going to let companies be people, would should make them be moral people and not support evil lying scum.

  44. #46 by cav on March 3, 2012 - 5:42 pm

    Imagine a world without Rush gnashing his porn over our sacred airwaves. A fellah’s gotta dream.

    Would one of you like to clarify the difference between astute and ass toot?

    I’ll take my answer off the air.

  45. #47 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 6:33 pm

    It’s a thin line, Cav. But you always seem to know just how far to go without crossing it.

  46. #48 by Larry Bergan on March 3, 2012 - 8:28 pm

    Wish I knew knew how to do that. :(

  47. #49 by Becky Stauffer on March 3, 2012 - 9:40 pm

    Don’t ever change, Larry. We love you just as you are.

  48. #50 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2012 - 9:09 am

    Thanks Becky.

  49. #51 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2012 - 9:23 am

    By the way, Glenden, thanks for the education on the Baptists @21. Very interesting.

  50. #52 by cav on March 4, 2012 - 5:46 pm

    NPR just reported Limbaugh has now lost a seventh advertiser.

    Reminds me of a bad joke. Two not very bright guys are on a plane, and the pilot announces: Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that the number 2 engine has failed. However, there is no reason to worry as we have three other engines. It does mean that we will be half an hour late.
    The guys look at each other, and order another beer.

    Twenty minutes later, the pilot announces: Ladies and gentlemen, for reasons that are not yet clear, the number 4 engine no longer seems to be functional. We are not in any danger, but we will be an hour late in arriving. The guys look at each other, and order another beer.

    Fifteen minutes later, the pilot announces gravely: Ladies and gentlemen, regrettably the number 3 engine has failed. We will be two hours late in arriving. The guys look at each other, and Bill says to Fred: If that last engine fails, we’ll be up here all day.

  51. #53 by cav on March 4, 2012 - 5:52 pm

    One other thing to remind folks of is: Rush is broadcast by a company owned by Bain Capital. So as long as the big, fat, scum-sucking misogynist is on the air there is a direct connection to Mittens.

  52. #54 by brewski on March 4, 2012 - 6:14 pm

    Becky,

    A appreciate your thoughts on the “folklore” aspects of Mormonism. I guess it makes me even more grateful that in my 48 years of going to church (not Mormon), I have never heard from a minister or member anything which could be construed as racist or sexist. I grew up listening to women ministers preach from the pulpit. I was married by a very openly gay minister….from Alabama of all places. I realize that other people’s experiences were not and are not as positive as mine.

    As for contraception, I have no problem at all with contraception. My wife was on the pill until we decided to have our wonderful daughter. It is a great thing. But please tell me, since I am a man and don’t understand, why the pill should be free and nothing else should be free? Keep in mind that I take a pharmacy of drugs every day to stay alive and the HHS hasn’t mandated that my lifesaving drugs should be free. This is personal to me.

    Thank you for your comments.

  53. #55 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2012 - 6:15 pm

    cav:

    I don’t need no stinking engines. :)

  54. #56 by cav on March 4, 2012 - 8:25 pm

    To brewski, We are talking about insurance here, are we not? Therefore ‘free’, as much as we might like it to be so, is not at all what the regular billing by the insurance companies is about.

    A good article:

    The Deep Resentment of Having to Think About It: Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke
    By AARON BADY

    http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/the-deep-resentment-of-having-to-think-about-it-rush-limbaugh-and-sandra-fluke/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  55. #57 by brewski on March 4, 2012 - 9:04 pm

    Cav,

    In case you missed it, the United States Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that all insurance companies’ health plan offer contraception, the morning after pill, etc. for FREE. There are not my words. These are their words. So go talk to Secretary Sebelius and her boss about it.

    Historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services at no additional cost were announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html

    Of course there is no such thing as free or no “co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible”. That is the point. What it means is that you and I will have higher premiums to pay for this, while I will still have to pay co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles for my medications. This is fantasy health care economics as imagined by the left. They wave magic pixie dust wands and mandate that some items will be “free” while others will not.

    So if you want to educate anyone on what the meaning of the words “free” is, then go educate Becky’s “beloved” Obama.

  56. #58 by Becky Stauffer on March 4, 2012 - 9:23 pm

    Brewski, I did not say “nothing else should be free.” And if I believed you really wanted to understand, I might try to have a conversation with you. But you are far to combative for me.

  57. #59 by cav on March 4, 2012 - 9:28 pm

    We’re pooling dough here.You and I and Everyone else. It is a health issue.

    From another perspective – and I may be abusing a dead equine here, there is the issue of a declining job sphere v number of seekers, total population pressure on both the established structure and the environment, much needed alternatives to GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH. We’ll be supporting it one way or the other, so why not curb birth rates?

  58. #60 by Shane on March 4, 2012 - 9:35 pm

    To take a turn back toward the topic, we can’t curb birth rates. All the little precious souls must be born to a family here on earth. A good LDS family. The local version of the Monty python “every sperm is sacred” skit you know…

  59. #61 by brewski on March 4, 2012 - 9:38 pm

    Becky,
    I do really want to understand. I don’t hold you personally responsible at all for the actions of Secretary Sebelius or your beloved Obama, as you put it. But they made those items free and nothing else free. Just that. I am not being combative at all when I simply state the objective facts that they made those items free, and nothing else. It sounds like you think that other things should be free too. I’d love for all of my drugs to be free too. So please help me understand.

  60. #62 by cav on March 4, 2012 - 10:40 pm

    Threads are important in the fabric they weave.

    Some of the kids I might have had, are just gonna have to settle for being my grand kids.

  61. #63 by Becky Stauffer on March 5, 2012 - 5:09 am

    Brewski, you personalize everything as if your experience is everyone’s experience. I have no idea why your drugs are not covered. If a doctor prescribes drugs for a patient, I think they should be covered by insurance. Covering contraceptives is a step in the right direction. That’s my opinion only. If cost is your main concern, to restate what Cav said, it will cost you and the insurance pool far more to provide obstetric and pediatric care when an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

    Brewski, save your barbs for the guys. If you want a discussion with me, you need to drop the sarcasm and insults.

  62. #64 by brewski on March 5, 2012 - 12:36 pm

    Becky,
    Thank you for your reply.
    I will keep to the substance at hand.

    My drugs are “covered” by insurance by I still pay over $6,000 per year in out of pocket costs, and this is with a top of the time state-employee insurance plan. But the HHS has not mandated that they be free by law. The HHS has only mandated that contraception and other items are free. So my point is that this new law is not being driven by what is good medicine or good health care economics. Just as contraceptives are cheaper for the whole system than an unplanned pregnancy, the same is true that medicines for diabetes or heart disease are cheaper than a stroke, heart attack, blindness, organ failure, etc. So if the identical logic the HHS has used only for a handful of some medical needs of women, then virtually all medicine and other care should also be mandated to be free. So I am making no argument against contraception, no argument against women’s health needs, and no argument against women in general as has been suggested by many. What I am saying is that it seems as though these policies are not being driven by anything other than the politics of pandering, rather than good medicine, cost efficiency, or good government.

  63. #65 by cav on March 5, 2012 - 1:21 pm

    I see your point.

  64. #66 by Becky Stauffer on March 5, 2012 - 7:36 pm

    Brewski,
    $500 a month is a hardship for any working person to handle. I don’t know how you manage. If you need those meds, then I think they should be covered. I’m not sure I understand what HHS has to do with it. Nor do I know what the handful of women’s medical needs are that are covered. Maybe mammograms and pap tests; ie, cancer screenings? When it comes to diabetes or heart disease, our health care system is, unfortunately, not geared toward wellness and prevention, but toward costly treatment.

  65. #67 by brewski on March 5, 2012 - 10:05 pm

    Becky,
    This week the HHS issued the following proclamation:

    Historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services at no additional cost were announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.

    You can read the full announcement here:
    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html

    So it is important to understand the details and each piece of the details:
    1. In this announcement, the HHS is mandating that all health insurance plans cover a small list of services. Among those included are contraception. No exceptions. I am all for contraception and all for preventing unwanted pregnancies. So as a simple matter, this sounds fine. And even though I don’t have a dog in this fight since I am not Catholic nor evangelical Christian, I do have sympathy for any private organization being told to do something that is against their beliefs. Therefore, the HHS here is telling the University of Notre Dame, for example, that it must cover contraception in their employee insurance plan. There remains a very large open question as to whether this is constitutional at all, given the 200+ years of case history which supports that the government can’t tell religions to do things that are against their beliefs. This is not the point I have been making previously, but it is one which is being argued and will probably end up in the Supreme Court.
    2. Completely separate from the requirement that the plans must include those items is the HHS mandate that all of those items must be completely free. So I have been raising the point that if contraception is such a good idea to be free, then why not lots of other lifesaving drugs and procedures? I mean, no one wants an unwanted pregnancy if it can be avoided, but also no one wants to loss of life and financial cost resulting from a heart attack, stroke, uncontrolled blood sugar, etc. So the HHS is making this mandate that the small list of items must be free has nothing to do with good decisions about women’s health or about cost effectiveness. If the HHS was so concerned about health and cost effectiveness then it would mandate that lots of things should be free, just like contraception. The fact that they did not leads me to suspect that they are making health policy mandates based on pandering to a political base and not logic.
    3. There is additional context here to the issue of making these women’s items free. The context is that the Affordable Care Act imposed an excise tax on medical devices such as hip replacements, pacemakers and insulin pumps which will have the effect of making those critical items MORE expensive than they were before. So this Administration is telling people with degenerating bones, failing hearts and diabetes that your health care is going to cost you EVEN MORE, but we are going to make a mandate that a list of items for women must be free. But this is where we are.

  66. #68 by Shane on March 7, 2012 - 8:04 am

    We cant afford to pay for birthcontrol, our healthcare tax dollars have better things to do! http://www.otherwords.org/articles/treating_sick_rich_folks

  67. #69 by brewski on March 7, 2012 - 9:05 am

    Troll

  68. #70 by byzoo on March 9, 2012 - 7:22 am

    The whole object of the creation of this world is to exalt the intelligences that are placed upon it, that they may live, endure, and increase for ever and ever. We are not here to quarrel and contend about the things of this world, but we are here to subdue and beautify it. Let every man and woman worship their God with all their heart. Let them pay their devotions and sacrifices to him, the Supreme, and the Author of their existence. Do all the good you can to your fellow-creatures. You are flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. God has created of one blood all the nations and kingdoms of men that dwell upon all the face of the earth: black, white, copper-coloured, or whatever their colour, customs, or religion, they have all sprung from the same origin; the blood of all is from the same element. Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.

    You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

    –Brigham Young

  69. #71 by black America on March 20, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    It’s not my first time to pay a quick visit this site, i am visiting this web page dailly and obtain good facts from here all the time.

  70. #72 by Triple Prime on August 10, 2012 - 6:17 pm

    Shane Smith :
    So mainstream, and with a grasp on reality…
    …unlike more conventional Christianity, where you simply eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of a god is is actually himself who was killed because you were made imperfect by a perfect god, thus requiring human sacrifice to allow you live forever. And don’t forget that the fact that his mom/young rape victim has to be a virgin. That iS manically important to us. Maybe that is why birthcontrol is so controversial.
    Yes those whacky Mormons, so unlike the reality based religions…

    try thinking for yourself. Ive obviously rubbed off on you a little too much! You forgot to mention JC was bloodline of David. BTW, you get uglier every time I see your unfortunate face

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: